Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Expression types such as 'red' exist

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's criterion of ontological commitment applies only to indispensable quantification, not merely convenient theoretical shorthand.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Quantification over expression types in linguistic theory can be systematically paraphrased away using only tokens and resemblance relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If a posit is eliminable without loss of explanatory power, ontological commitment to it is not genuinely incurred.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nominalists like Goodman and Quine demonstrated that type-talk is a façon de parler reducible to claims about concrete inscriptions and sounds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Abstract objects like types, if they exist, must be causally inert and thus cannot explain why any particular token has the properties it does.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.We are ontologically committed to that over which we quantify
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Our theories quantify over expression types
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.